------- Comment #5 from a dot chavasse at gmail dot com 2007-10-30 23:51 ------- Well, I did notice that the library was conforming to n2369, but I have really no idea otherwise about this - except that it did break the compilation of some really straightforward and innocent looking code of mine that was pushing const pointers to objects on a stack so it did feel like something was wrong.
Perhaps an explicit cast to a const pointer is supposed to be necessary to remove the ambiguity, but it feels counter-intuitive since it's my understanding that the usage of rvalue references (and move semantics) instead of lvalue references is meant to be a transparent optimization in most cases. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33930
